Site Mobile Navigation

Columbia Torn by Disciplinary Hearing

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996.
To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems.
Please send reports of such problems to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

Twenty-five years after a series of student protests roiled Columbia University, students and administrators are again wrangling over how far students may go to protest an action by the university -- and how harsh the punishment should be for those who do so illegally.

Tomorrow, seven students will be tried in a university disciplinary hearing on charges stemming from a protest in December over Columbia's plans to turn the Audubon Theater and Ballroom, where Malcolm X was assassinated on Feb. 21, 1965, into a biomedical-research complex.

The students will present their case before a hearing officer chosen by the University Senate, Harold R. Tyler, a retired Federal District Court judge. If found guilty, the students will face suspension or dismissal from Columbia, penalties that many students and others outside the university consider unusually severe for a demonstration that was for the most part uneventful.

The dispute over the university's rules of conduct has resulted in sharp divisions on the Columbia campus, forcing the university to examine how it balances the rights of students to assemble and speak their minds with its responsibility to maintain order and peace for others trying to get on with their academic lives.

But university officials say that the rules of conduct allow students plenty of leeway and that in this case, the students went too far.

"The rules are completely fair," the university said in a statement. "Students have fully and freely expressed themselves countless times over the years. The rules limit that freedom only when such activity clearly interferes with the rights of others, one of which is the right to attend classes."

The incident has produced a volley of letters to the campus newspaper, The Columbia Spectator.

"It's been the big issue on campus this year," said Tim Carvell, the Spectator's editorial page editor, who said opinion seemed divided.

The newspaper opined that "regardless of the validity of their motivations," the students' actions "were an inappropriate way for them to achieve their goals."

Since 1968, the campus has been the site of student protests that have tested the university's tolerance for free expression and forced officials to refine their written rules of conduct.

In the spring of 1968, the police were called in to clear out hundreds of students who had occupied Hamilton Hall, the hub of the undergraduate college, and four other buildings during a weeklong protest of defense-related research and plans by the university to build a gymnasium in Morningside Park.

In 1985, students padlocked and chained Hamilton Hall during a three-week demonstration against the university's investment policy on South Africa.

In the December incident, the scene was again Hamilton Hall. But the number of students was much smaller, and the blockade, more spontaneous, did not last a day. Dec. 14 Demonstration

The Barnard-Columbia Save the Audubon Coalition organized the demonstration on Dec. 14, a few days before the semester ended, at the center of the main campus. They hoped to persuade the university to protect the Audubon ballroom, at Broadway and 165th Street in Washington Heights, as a historical landmark. The ballroom is one of five buildings included in plans for a four-block, triangular complex to be developed jointly by Columbia, the New York City Economic Development Corporation and the New York State Urban Development Corporation.

Around noon, about 150 protesters decided to take their message to Jack Greenberg, the dean of Columbia's undergraduate college, whose office is on the first floor of Hamilton Hall.

Dean Greenberg said last week that he agreed to meet with a small number of students, but that some in the group insisted that he meet with all of them. Dean Greenberg refused, and a standoff began.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Just after 7 P.M., Dean Greenberg emerged from his office, told the protesters that he had nothing to do with the Audubon decision, and left the building, students said.

The students walked over to Broadway, the campus's western border, where they briefly blocked traffic, said a protester, Noah Potter. They then blocked traffic on Amsterdam Avenue, the campus's eastern border, for a short time, although security and police officers who followed them from Hamilton Hall did nothing stop them. After that, the group dispersed.

"There was no violence at any time," Mr. Potter said.

But the university is charging that the demonstrators kept students and faculty members from Hamilton Hall for much of the afternoon, during final exam week. Students are also being charged with violations of university rules of conduct, like refusing to identify themselves to campus security and failing to disperse.

A few days after the demonstration, several of the students were notified by mail that charges could be brought against them as a result of the demonstration. Students believe they were identified from videotapes made by security guards.

The students were told to appear before acting Provost Stephen Rittenberg to discuss possible charges, a step that could have allowed them to settle the matter. Postponement Requested

Mr. Potter and Benjamin Jealous, both among the seven who will be tried tomorrow, said that they all wrote letters to Mr. Rittenberg asking for a postponement of that meeting, because many of them were about to leave for the winter break. They also asked that they be allowed to meet with the provost together.

But instead of responding to their requests, the university notified them that a hearing had been scheduled before Judge Tyler, a step that allowed them no chance for further negotiation of the charges or their ultimate penalty if found guilty, the two students said.

Another 30 students have received notices that charges may be filed against them, but none of their cases has reached the stage of those to be tried tomorrow.

That the accused students are not being tried by a panel of their peers or faculty members, as students are at many other universities, has drawn many sympathizers.

But Dr. Tim Brooks, a former president of the Association of Student Judicial Affairs, a national group, said Columbia may be totally within its rights.

Dr. Brooks, who is now the dean of students at Delaware University, said private colleges do not have the same constitutional due-process requirements that public colleges must follow. He said they have more freedom to devise rules of discipline and penalties, including who will judge students, but they must apply the rules consistently, make them known to all students and allow for appeals. Pro Bono Lawyers

Many of those supporting the students also have complained that while the university will be represented by lawyers hired from an outside law firm, no such help was offered to the students, who attracted lawyers who would work for them pro bono.

"We have some major concerns that the process is not fair enough," said Norman Siegel, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which has offered its support to the students.

Dr. Brooks said there was a trend among college officials across the country to toughen disciplinary measures against students, which he said was a reaction to widespread unrest at college campuses during the 1960's and 70's.